Some free-floating hostility for you:

My keyboard died last night, and I had to go get a new one, but now it appears that it may be something in the computer fouling up, because the same things are happening with the new keyboard.

Bogart themed furniture? I saw an add for Humphrey Bogart furniture on E!. That'll teach me to watch E! now won't it. But how else will I keep up to date on the Robert Blake case, none of the other networks are covering it.

The Dream Team Jon Edward has alot to atone for, first that other show that takes his formula with the creepy looking guy, and now this crap. How many of the dreams that the 'experts' are analyzing are actually real and how many are just bollocks? I'm guessing not many are the former.

Brooks and Dunn, why?

This isn't hostility, actually quite the opposite, What's Going On by Marvin Gaye, great album. nuff said.
That's enough for now I think.

Look, booty.

I find it interesting when people ask me why I read the books that I read. The immediate response that comes to mind is, why don't other people read the books that I read? I know that some people read some of the books that I read, but I would tend to think that very few read all of the books that I do. Statistically the number would be very small indeed.

One of the things that I'm trying to do by keeping track of the order that I read and finish books on my booklist is to track the chain of what I read and how they relate to one another, if there is any relation.

I think that most people get too attached to one particular reality tunnel, as Robert Anton Wilson would call it. Thier world-view becomes comfortable and anything else is dangerous and if not outright obscene it is disturbing. So much do they think that they will be disturbed they refuse to look or even to consider the possibility of an outside view. They become xenophobic and place artificial walls around themselves.

I just finished reading Disinformation: the Interviews by Richard Metzger, and one person, flipping through the book and seeing a painting Secret Babylon the Great: The Mega by Norbert H. Kox, which incoporates the "traditional" version of Jesus as the Statue of Liberty holding aloft the Holy Grail which appears to be sprouting some form of tentacles, she called the picture "very blasphemous." The Jesus/Liberty is surrounded by occultic symbols such as the eye and is being struck at its foot by a beam of light which also penetrates what appears to be a bible and is destroying the foot of the statue. The Grail, Jesus and the book that Liberty holds all sport pricetags as well.


I can understand why she would feel that it was at a casual glance, and Kox's work is often called that, but if anyone cares to investigate further, or, I don't know, actually thinks about what is being depicted in the image, it is apparant that Kox is making a statement about the current state of religion as he does in all of his paintings. With the pricetags he is saying that the image of Jesus is bought and sold today as a business, and the church has become mired in occultism and is being destroyed from the base by a misunderstanding of the word of God in the Bible.

He says as much in the interview, though that particular painting is not really discussed.

On the surface this would appear to be blasphemy, but he is actually trying to make a point with his imagery.

But back to the question of why I read what I read...I want to understand people and why they think what they think. I don't know of any better way to understand a person and their position than to listen to them, and through their writings, that is what I am trying to do. Be it Bob Larson and his everything is a portal to devil-worship and Satanism, or Aleister Crowley (who according to Larson I shouldn't be reading, because he is a portal to Satansim, go figure. I guess Bob is the only one who should read him and then just let us know how evil and deceptive he was, save us the trouble and the temptation). I also read alot of fiction and I hope to read some of the Left Behind books soon, because I want to know what those books are telling people, lots of people are buying and reading them.

At the core I think it's important to follow the advice that Robert Anton Wilson gives in one of his books to remember not to believe to take your own Belief System (B.S.) to seriously, and not to take others B.S. too seriously either. Leave youself some room to evaluate and then decide.

Because how do you know?

Why is the most important question in the English language and if someone starts barking back the answer, "just because," or "because so-and-so said so," press the issue.

And if someone shows up and tells you to stop asking those questions ask them even more vociferously, because you're on to something then.

It's official, I now have hosting for my own domain at Evilhippy.net, but the domain isn't cleared or whatever, so the site isn't working yet. When it finally gets up and running, I'll let everyone know, and I'll do my best to get my web-presence all centrally located there.

Movie Corner

Daredevil is not the terrible piece of schlock filmaking I expected, but it isn't exactly a terrificly good movie either. On the whole in the genre of superhero films I rate it above Blade but below Blade II, above The Punisher but below Spiderman. I think one of the major problems I had with the film was in how it attempted at many times to be like Spiderman.

The wire-fu used in the film was nowhere near as bad as I expected, but it was still overused somewhat, and I think a more stripped down fighting style from 'ol hornhead would have worked better. Batman's fight scenes worked so well because there was nothing unreal about what Michael Keaton was doing. I believe Michael Keaton can punch and kick, but I do not believe Ben Affleck can flip and dive off buildings in such a way, even if I see it on screen.

From the acting department all of the leads were fine and didn't do anything horribly out of character, except for the little extra non-word exclamations they would give after an important line such as after Elektra gives her name or any time that Bulleseye would talk. They kept reminding me of when Spawn says "Damn" after being hit hard or anytime Shack would speak in Steel. It's not as if they had terrific dialogue to work with anyway. Most of the lines in the film are bland and forgettable. Only Favreau's Foggy Nelson (Who is never referred to by name in the film as far as I could tell) has any memorable dialogue.

Which reminds me of another way the film was apeing Spiderman...The unnecessary narrative dialogue from the titular character. Let the film tell the story. Bladerunner is better without it, and this film would be to. If action on the screen can't tell the story clearly without having to explain it, then the action on the screen should be worked on. This is not a noir film. There is no nead for the hero to tell us what is going on.

The direction was adequate in the film, I don't have any major gripes with the pacing or the camera placements, only that some of the effects work was underdone and could have been better. I am tired of seeing night scenes that were obviously filmed in the daytime and have had a nightime sky added in. Film it at night if it is supposed to be at night.

Now for the bitchy stuff.

What is up with the terrible score in this film? Why do we need lukewarm, generic rock songs to flesh out the soundtrack? One or two terrible songs is fine, but this movie over does it.

In the court case what is Matt Murdock doing on the prosecutorial side? He is a defense attorney. The staging of the trial makes no sense if you think of it that way. Is is a civil case? Then why does it seem to be a rape trial? I don't expect perfect law representation, but a little better authenticity would be in order. If he was taking part in a divorce case maybe, or if he was defending the woman for assaulting the man after a rape, also maybe, but the case doesn't make any sense.

A leather suit? Wouldn't that make alot of noise and be hard to move in? What about all that rain, wouldn't it stink?

In the end though I did like this movie. I think if they would have approached it from the angle of an action film instead of a superhero film it would have been better though.

I think Daredevil would make a good television show. Do it similarly to Smallville where the emphasis isn't on the super-powers, but on the characters and work most of the show around Matt Murdock attorney at law in Hell's Kitchen. Only bust out the costume once and awhile. Similarly to how Bendis writes the comic, make it about Matt's quest to work inside the law and the dilemmas when he is forced to work outside of it.

I posted the wrong file for my first attempt at flash-type animation, but I think I've fixed it. Try it here. I don't think the sound is working, but I'll work on that.